Instead of lashing out, NIF officials should promote a vibrant
society based on twin pillars of Zionism, democracy.

The New Israel Fund is a well-established and influential organization, but its
disproportionate responses to criticism and challenges suggests that below the
façade of power and responsibility, its leaders are in panic.

For years,
NGO Monitor research has systematically demonstrated that a significant portion
of NIF grants have funded groups that invoke “apartheid” rhetoric, lead BDS
efforts and even call for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, among other
demonizing activity counterproductive to the pursuit of peace.

We
repeatedly have asked to meet with NIF, to share our information, and to help
them better monitor their grantees. In almost every instance, their public
relations gurus – born from the cutthroat worlds of Washington, DC, and Israel’s
political wars – have responded with personal attacks, false allegations and
other uncivil rhetoric that takes the conversation in an entirely negative
direction.

The latest instance occurred in an NIF-sponsored article that
referred to NGO Monitor as “ultra-nationalist,” a “mouthpiece for the extreme
right,” and insinuated that that we are motivated by a “racist” agenda of a
state “without Arab citizens” or one in which “those citizens docilely accept
second-class status.”

Every allegation is unfounded; if NIF leaders would
sit down with us they would see the falsity in these dubious
claims.

Another particularly egregious error in the op-ed was the
allegation that NGO Monitor has “opine[d] that it should be illegal for Adalah
and other NGOs to receive funding from democracies abroad.” This allegation from
the NIF is clearly and entirely false – NGO Monitor’s position on these issues
is highly visible and easily verified.

From The New York Times, to The
Forward, to The Jerusalem Post, NGO Monitor has clearly stated that while we
support full funding transparency, we oppose draft legislation seeking to place
limits on foreign funding for political NGOs. In no case has NGO Monitor stated
it should be “illegal” for Adalah or other Israeli political advocacy NGOs to
receive funding from “democracies abroad.”

As part of this campaign, NIF
has developed an imaginary image of Adalah designed to validate continued
funding, regardless of the facts. Daniel Skoatch, NIF’s executive director,
recently told NIF funders and supporters that Adalah is “Israel’s leading
Arab-Israeli civil rights organization and an NIF grantee.” This and other NIF
statements whitewash Adalah calls for governments to “re-evaluate their
relationship with Israel,” and erase the words of Adalah’s general director,
Hassan Jabareen, urging activists “to highlight the inherent undemocratic state”
and to “use that as part of campaigning internationally.”

As NIF’s record
of mistakes and embarrassments grows, the hysterical efforts to blame the
messengers have worn thin. The same tactics were used when, in 2004, we
publicized NIF’s fellowship award to Shamai Leibowitz, who promoted BDS in the
US, among other activities inconsistent with NIF’s declared objectives. NIF also
lashed out at a whistleblower who protested that some of its Israeli activists
“want to annihilate the State without ruling out violent means, who believe that
the State of Israel was born out of sin and who apologize for its existence, who
loathe Israel and its symbols... who devote their lives and efforts
towards turning Israel into a bi- or multi-national country... They also equate
Israel’s actions with those of Nazi Germany.”

The recent Wikileaks
embarrassment – in which NIF’s associate director in Israel at the time told US
Embassy officials “that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority
Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that
Israelis fear since it would become more democratic” – is the clearest evidence
that key NIF decision-makers are pursuing agendas unaligned with the
organization’s mission and principles.

This mistaken appointment led
directly to funding of groups which are centrally involved in the BDS campaigns,
such as the Coalition of Women for Peace. It took two years for NIF to finally
end this funding, only after repeated attacks against NGO Monitor and our
research exposing the details.

There are numerous other examples, from
grantee activities to rhetoric from NIF officials, which further affirm the
simple point that a major problem exists. It may be easier for NIF to present
the situation as “NGO Monitor vs. NIF,” but this is disingenuous. NGO
Monitor is not against NIF. Our task is to help funders for this and other
organizations by providing checks and balances against the abuse of power, and
ensuring that moral guidelines are upheld.

Instead of lashing out in
panic, NIF officials should end their polarizing discourse, agree to a
constructive dialogue with NGO Monitor, and work together to promote a vibrant
and justice-based society based on the twin pillars of Zionism and
democracy.

Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a
Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated to promoting universal human
rights and to encouraging civil discussion on the reports and activities of
nongovernmental organizations, particularly in the Middle East. Jason Edelstein
is communications director of NGO Monitor.